Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive1

Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

This article has been twice nominated for FAC and failed twice, including once just after a previous peer review (Oct 2005). Much has been done on the article over the last 16 months since the last failure and I consider the article is close to being nominated again for Featured Article. I am currently working through the article adding more inline citations, mostly to the current references, however there are already a large number of inline citations. I am particularly looking for feedback on making the article "Well written, means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.", but any feedback on Featured article criteria or the article generally is appreciated. -Waza 11:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a decent article, but it still needs editing throughout the article to address grammatical issues. The start of this sentence seems awkward to me: "Also much of, in some versions all of, the action takes place..." The lead section, p2/s1, should mention non-violent interactions with other denizens of the settings (rather than just between the PCs). The notes section has inconsistent citation format, and there are some in-line links that would be better as citations. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and edits. I will try an address these sugestions soon. Can I please ask for clarification on what exactly you are refering to with "notes section has inconsistent citation format".
The sources both in the references and footnotes use Wikipedia:Citation templates except in a few cases where the unusal format is required to references the peculiarities of a game as it varies from standard reference types. General sources which apply to the article as a whole or are refered to numerous times are in the references section, specific sources applicable to one or two points only are in the notes. The footnotes are all one of three types:
  1. A reference by author and data to one of the general sources in the References section, with page number and section heading or quote where relevant.
  2. A full citaion in the same format as those in the references section.
  3. An explanatory note of the text footnoted, often including info in the style of type (1) or (2) inline with the explanatory text to reference the explanatory text.
Thanks - Waza 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to apologise somewhat for above. I have gone through references carefully and noted some inconsistancies. I am continuing to work through them and will also add some discussion on talk page about how unusual references are dealt with. However I would still appreciate any feedback on particular issues with references. - Waza 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It looks like my concern was mostly with the some inconsistent date fields, but this is only an issue with footnotes 50, 77 and 85. For your other footnotes, it isn't really necessary to keep the empty assignments in the citation templates: that just adds extra characters to the article size. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The dates in the notes have been presented mostly as how are described in the source themselves. However I was considering if they should be all put in yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601) as I have actually done with 77. This is then consistent with the "Retrived on" date as generated by the citation template. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) it is appropriate to use ISO 8601 only in non prose, but most dates in footnotes are not prose, therefore I will change all applicable ones to ISO 8601 and link so they will display as per users date preferences. - Waza 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)